Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
For those saying St. Louis, I'm not so sure. St. Louis could've easily been developed where Cairo is today on the confluence with the Ohio, which I would argue is way more important of a river than the Missouri. But Cairo is tiny town and St. Louis is a major city.
I would fully agree with you that the Ohio River runs rings around the Missouri River in importance and usage, but wasn't it really all about the Mississippi that made the city important. As far as the Missouri goes, I'm not sure I see a contribution there to St. Louis, short of that being the path taken by Lewis and Clark that basically gave StL the nickname of Gateway to the West.
This does not take away from the idea that the convergence of the Mississippi and Ohio (be it in Cairo on in sites in KY and MO) would have been a great location for a major city and that it is a bit surprising none developed there.
wouldn't Montreal be at a disadvantage being so far north (as Boston is east)? Also, didn't New York have a tremendous advantage over Montreal because (1) it directly on the Atlantic and (2) its harbor is unparalleled?
I'm sure back in the colonial days one didn't need a StL Seaway to access Montreal for I'm sure it could handle even the biggest loads at the time.....but Getting to Montreal through both gulf and river is a pretty long and indirect path.
I would definitely think that the strength of the waterway constructed of natural bodies of water and canals like the Erie and I&M are also contingent at their portals (NY, NO) being by the Atlantic and the Gulf.
I don't think Montreal being north would be a major issue. Europe is much further north than you think. Montreal is significantly to the south of Paris, to say nothing of London, meaning a shorter distance overall. Of course, they'd ave to get out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in winter it would have been iced over.
IIRC before the only real rapids along the St. Lawrence River were right around Montreal. Ships could travel inland from the sea to Montreal. The first canal circumventing these rapids was built in 1825, meaning from that point forth you could navigate all the way from the Atlantic to Lake Ontario.
I do think that something like the Erie Canal coming into existence was likely. But in the scenario of an undivided U.S. New York would have to compete with Montreal as a destination for goods coming from the Great Lakes littoral (and indirectly, from the entire Mississippi river basin) which would have shifted growth around quite a bit.
I don't think Montreal being north would be a major issue. Europe is much further north than you think. Montreal is significantly to the south of Paris, to say nothing of London, meaning a shorter distance overall. Of course, they'd ave to get out of the Gulf of St. Lawrence, and in winter it would have been iced over.
IIRC before the only real rapids along the St. Lawrence River were right around Montreal. Ships could travel inland from the sea to Montreal. The first canal circumventing these rapids was built in 1825, meaning from that point forth you could navigate all the way from the Atlantic to Lake Ontario.
I do think that something like the Erie Canal coming into existence was likely. But in the scenario of an undivided U.S. New York would have to compete with Montreal as a destination for goods coming from the Great Lakes littoral (and indirectly, from the entire Mississippi river basin) which would have shifted growth around quite a bit.
I think you misunderstood me. When I said too far north for Montreal ans also too far east for Boston, I was thinking of the United States, not Europe.
Im certainly aware how far north Europe is and that many are fooled thinking it is further south than it is due to the warmth brought in on the gulf stream
New Orleans. The mouth of the Mississippi and the Gulf not to far from it provides a major spot for a port to get built. Houston to a lesser extent as well as it sits close to a bay and the Gulf as well. Houston would be in a better spot if it was on the Galveston Bay right where Laporte sits . Look on a map if you can. A large city definitely had potential if it grew from there. But New Orleans is in a better location because of the Mississippi.
Location: northern Vermont - previously NM, WA, & MA
10,748 posts, read 23,809,943 times
Reputation: 14660
I always found Pittsburgh at the confluence of three rivers, and essentially THE major city for Appalachian region to be an intriguing location for a city.
To me the most obvious locations for major cities are the ones with big harbors; Boston, New York, Seattle, and San Francisco. Around the world, the one thing the British were best at when they established colonies were surveying and establishing settlements (or conquering) around some of the world's greatest harbors.
One's that puzzle me a bit, are Los Angeles, Phoenix, and Dallas/Fort Worth. I understand in modern day settlement there are legit reasons for them to be major cities. LA had a large basin of land to build on, as does the Valley of the Sun that surrounds Phoenix. DFW historically on the cattle drives of the Chisholm Trail. But their locations really don't stand out as absolutely obvious locations for a major city, like San Francisco or Chicago do. Los Anegels had no natural harbor, Phoenix is just a valley, no big river and no major city right on the Colorado River in the Southwest, and Dallas is kind of in the middle of nowhere topographically.
Last edited by Champ le monstre du lac; 08-07-2018 at 10:17 PM..
Anywhere a natural seaport exists on the edge of an ocean, or at the nearest point to another continent. San Francisco has the bay and a water route to its inland agricultural area, albeit one that didn't thrive until irrigation. Seattle has the Puget Sound in the corner of the lower 48, closest to Asia and Alaska. Same with Vancouver for Canada. I'd say Boston but it's not the only protected water pointing toward Europe. New York after the Erie Canal.
Yet, there was a battle between Seattle and Tacoma back in the day, mainly due to a railroad decision that eventually favored Seattle.
This explains why Seattle is the big city, and Tacoma is secondary to this day.
The Ohio River at Cairo took commerce and people largely toward New Orleans and an outlet to the sea. The Tennessee and Cumberland Rivers entered the Ohio close by coming up from the south but the Natchez Trace was an alternate route. No thriving port or manufacturing city grew up there to compare with St. Louis. The Missouri River headed west, the direction the country was heading. The fur trade put St. Louis in the center of attention. River traffic and migration west made it rich outfitting settlers, craftsmen, merchants and even soldiers taking steamboats as far as Montana on the Missouri River.
New Orlean's location on the first relatively high ground on the Mississippi River - yes the Quarter and the Garden District ARE above sea level and was the first place a city could be built going up the Mississippi. The levees and below sea level neighborhoods weren't built till later.
Also, not sure how much it contributed to the growth of that city, but Baton Rouge is the most inland port on the Mississippi today that oceangoing ships can go to and is a major transfer point into river barges and railroads.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
